Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why are there so few headphones that can cover the full audio range well?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are there so few headphones that can cover the full audio range well? - Page 4

post #46 of 67
11/12/12 at 6:12pm
Quote:
I wonder why they don't use a crossover to force single driver systems to be flat? It's almost like nobody has ever tried.

 

 

Crossover would indicated two different drivers. There are hardware eq's based on individual mappings. Linkwitz does this - there are a lot of variables in individual listeners though - so you'd always be forcing flat for a certain particular test parameter - not necessarily for each listener. I'd personally rather control my own eq. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Is there a manufacturer that publicly admits to trying for a flat response and gives a good excuse for not being able to achieve it?

 

 

I've never seen anyone list this as a particular goal - tho you do see the word accurate used a lot. There is something to be said for rolling off the highs a bit too - from a hrtf standpoint and a listenability standpoint.

Also, you sell more headphones by engaging the emotional side of a buyer. 

Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #47 of 67
11/12/12 at 9:42pm

Great thread. The upcoming Heir Audio Tzar 350 is supposed to shoot for a flat response with two drivers. Also add the Frogbeats C4 to the list of relatively flat iems. The ER4S still seems to hold the title though.

Reply
post #48 of 67
11/13/12 at 2:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenswall View Post
Is there a manufacturer that publicly admits to trying for a flat response and gives a good excuse for not being able to achieve it?

Well, Beyerdynamic states the obvious in their FAQ: there are limits to mechanical and electrical equalization, so they cannot DF-equalize the headphones perfectly. Plus they state that they adjust the FR to various tastes.

Reply
post #49 of 67
11/13/12 at 10:25am
Whenever I hear people say that it's impossible to EQ perfectly, it's always followed by "so we don't even try".

Yesterday, a DSP designed around the sound signature of Apple earbuds was released...

Dirac HD Player Lite by Dirac
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dirac-hd-player-lite/id551661761?mt=8

I haven't heard it, but supposedly it is a DSP designed to correct for the deficiencies of earbuds and make them. Sound MUCH better. This is a very interesting concept to me.
Reply
post #50 of 67
11/13/12 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Whenever I hear people say that it's impossible to EQ perfectly, it's always followed by "so we don't even try".
Yesterday, a DSP designed around the sound signature of Apple earbuds was released...
Dirac HD Player Lite by Dirac
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dirac-hd-player-lite/id551661761?mt=8
I haven't heard it, but supposedly it is a DSP designed to correct for the deficiencies of earbuds and make them. Sound MUCH better. This is a very interesting concept to me.

GE has Accudio which attempts to do the same thing for a variety of IEMs and a few cans. It's an interesting idea indeed.
Reply
post #51 of 67
11/13/12 at 4:07pm

Maybe a bit off track but is there an Accudio similar type of deal for fb2k?

Reply
post #52 of 67
11/13/12 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

Maybe a bit off track but is there an Accudio similar type of deal for fb2k?

Not that I know of. frown.gif
Reply
post #53 of 67
11/13/12 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post


Not that I know of. frown.gif

 

Oh well...

700

 

Time will say redface.gif


Edited by ultrabike - 11/13/12 at 6:05pm
Reply
post #54 of 67
11/13/12 at 6:58pm

"Why are there so few headphones that can cover the full audio range well"?

 

Why do so few manufacturers (actually, there's only 1?) implement active crossovers? That would resolve all of the flaws of traditional multi-driver + passive XO design philosophy, would it not? The biggest hurdle that I can see here is in getting manufacturers to agree on standardization; that way, amplifiers from manufacturer X will be compatible with DACs from manufacturer Y, and IEMs from manufacturer Z.

 

It seems Jerry Harvey found a way to achieve a new level of phase alignment without going down the active XO route. He calls it Freqphase, which I'm not sure whether JH has patented, or is just a label he uses to describe his technique.

Reply
post #55 of 67
11/14/12 at 3:20am
Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge View Post

 

Why do so few manufacturers (actually, there's only 1?) implement active crossovers?

Because most headphones are full-range, and no crossover is the best crossover.

 

Quote:
That would resolve all of the flaws of traditional multi-driver + passive XO design philosophy, would it not?

I'm not sure. A properly designed passive crossover should work very well. Just because they make them active doesn't mean they get it right.

There's also the question of increasing cost.

 

Quote:
The biggest hurdle that I can see here is in getting manufacturers to agree on standardization; that way, amplifiers from manufacturer X will be compatible with DACs from manufacturer Y, and IEMs from manufacturer Z.

Or every manufacturers just uses proprietary stuff so they can kinda force you to buy all their components.

 

Quote:
It seems Jerry Harvey found a way to achieve a new level of phase alignment without going down the active XO route. He calls it Freqphase, which I'm not sure whether JH has patented, or is just a label he uses to describe his technique.

There have been IEMs with clean phase response long before Freqphase, yet he claims "Freqphase™ creates the world's first phase-coherent earphone".

 

On the website it says patent pending but I guess it's something as simple as moving the drivers a bit back to ensure sound arrives more coherently at the eardrum. Afaik it's still passive crossovers.

Reply
post #56 of 67
11/14/12 at 8:44am
Freqphase seems to be part of the JH-3A amp - why do I get a very strong "BBE Engine" vibe from "it time aligns the signal" phrases? I'm almost wondering if the JH-3A doesn't have built-in filters or similar to compensate for known values on the JH-16 or similar.
Reply
post #57 of 67
11/14/12 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

Freqphase seems to be part of the JH-3A amp - why do I get a very strong "BBE Engine" vibe from "it time aligns the signal" phrases? I'm almost wondering if the JH-3A doesn't have built-in filters or similar to compensate for known values on the JH-16 or similar.

Nope, it's part of the earphones. There's no signal processing. Afaik there's not even changes to the crossovers - seems to be purely mechanical.


Edited by xnor - 11/14/12 at 10:52am
Reply
post #58 of 67
11/14/12 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Because most headphones are full-range, and no crossover is the best crossover.

 

I'm not sure. A properly designed passive crossover should work very well. Just because they make them active doesn't mean they get it right.

There's also the question of increasing cost.

 

Or every manufacturers just uses proprietary stuff so they can kinda force you to buy all their components.

 

There have been IEMs with clean phase response long before Freqphase, yet he claims "Freqphase™ creates the world's first phase-coherent earphone".

 

On the website it says patent pending but I guess it's something as simple as moving the drivers a bit back to ensure sound arrives more coherently at the eardrum. Afaik it's still passive crossovers.

Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

Freqphase seems to be part of the JH-3A amp - why do I get a very strong "BBE Engine" vibe from "it time aligns the signal" phrases? I'm almost wondering if the JH-3A doesn't have built-in filters or similar to compensate for known values on the JH-16 or similar.

Started around the middle of October, any JH13/16 unit comes with Freqphase.

Reply
post #59 of 67
11/14/12 at 11:53am

Sounds like he finally got clearance to put a trademarked name to what they (and others) have been doing for a long time anyway. 

Reply
post #60 of 67
11/15/12 at 2:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Nope, it's part of the earphones. There's no signal processing. Afaik there's not even changes to the crossovers - seems to be purely mechanical.

Interesting. I'd only seen it mentioned with the JH-3A/JH-16 combo. Admittedly I haven't followed Harvey very closely. redface.gif

Has anyone measured phase on these (and are there "non-freqphase" units available for comparison?)? Just curious at this point more than anything.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why are there so few headphones that can cover the full audio range well?